WPR19LA253

During the takeoff roll for the instructional flight, the student pilot allowed the airplane to veer left of centerline multiple times, but the flight instructor corrected the airplane’s track back to runway centerline with steering control inputs. As the airplane lifted off the ground, the student pilot abruptly pitched the airplane’s nose up, and the airplane began to bank to the left. The flight instructor stated twice that he had the flight controls; however, the student pilot’s continued inputs prevented the flight instructor from gaining control of the airplane. Afterward, the airplane stalled; the student pilot relinquished airplane control to the flight instructor; and the airplane entered a spin and collided with the roof of a two-story airport building, which caused substantial damage to the airplane and serious injuries to the airplane occupants. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no preexisting malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that full operation of the elevator was not possible while the flight instructor was trying to manipulate the controls and the student pilot was not relinquishing the controls, which led to the roll to the left and the subsequent exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack. Even though the student pilot was at the controls before and at the time of the stall, the flight instructor had the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight, especially given that the accident flight was only the student’s second time receiving instruction in the accident airplane.

On September 10, 2019, about 0830 mountain standard time, an Ercoupe 415-C airplane, N3816H, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at the Ak-Chin Regional Airport (A39), Maricopa, Arizona. The student pilot and the flight instructor were seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. In a postaccident statement, the flight instructor indicated that he briefed the student pilot on the maneuvers that they would be practicing and had the student describe each maneuver. The briefing also included the instructor’s expectation for a positive exchange of flight controls in the event of an emergency. The student pilot acknowledged this information. The flight instructor and the student pilot then performed the preflight. According to the flight instructor, the student pilot taxied to the runway, and he was instructed to perform a short-field takeoff. During the takeoff roll, the airplane veered to the left of centerline, and the flight instructor told the student pilot to return to runway centerline. The flight instructor stated that he “corrected three times with the yoke” before the airplane lifted off the ground. As the airplane reached 65 knots, the student pilot rotated abruptly by “applying a strong amount” of back pressure,” which caused the airplane to pitch up and bank to the left. The flight instructor stated that he yelled, “I have the flight controls” as he applied forward pressure to level the wings, but the airplane did not respond to his control inputs. The flight instructor then looked to his left and saw that the student pilot was still flying the airplane. The flight instructor repeated that he had the flight controls and tried a second time to lower the nose and level the wings, again with no response from the airplane. -story airport building, as shown in the figure. The airplane stalled at an altitude of about 75 ft above ground level; subsequently, the student pilot placed his hands in the air and told the flight instructor, “you have the controls.” The airplane then entered a spin and collided with a two Figure. Accident airplane (Source: FAA). The owner of the airplane (and the flight club that owned and maintained the airplane) witnessed the accident. The owner saw the airplane depart from the runway and travel in the direction of the airport’s administration building. The airplane was at an altitude of about 50 ft above ground level, and the engine sounded normal. The airplane then pitched up slightly, rolled to the left, and impacted the roof of the building nose first. The owner further stated that the accident flight was the second training flight for the student pilot in the accident airplane. Examination of the airplane revealed impact damage to the wings and fuselage. Flight control continuity was established. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions orfailures that would have precluded normal operation.